User talk:Dancter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Dancter is busy in real life until possibly July and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
 Archives |
[edit] You need to stop deleting things
You need to stop deleting things other people put on Wikipedia because most of them are true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richboy45 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 13 March 2008
- I'm assuming you're referring to the "Bloodism" article. To me, it seemed fairly apparent it was a case of something you just made up. If you wish to defend your article as legitimate, you'd need to directly verify the information by adding specific citations to reliable published sources. That vampire.com link doesn't cut it. Dancter (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I agree with Richboy. Maybe Bloodism is real, just not heard of that much. 216.124.194.34 (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Anyone can say "maybe". "Maybe" you made it up. "Maybe" the fact that it's not heard of that much makes it impossible to verify by Wikipedia,and thus not suitable to include. "Maybe" you're Richboy. "Maybe" you should be using your school connection for something constructive, rather than vandalizing Wikipedia. Dancter (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Yeah, you need to top deleting things.
You said:
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Last.fm. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Although you provided a source stating that the Last.fm service cannot currently disambiguate artists with identical names (which is apparently a technical issue, and not a policy), no source was provided describing or explaining the Last.fm's actual protections of partners' trademarks against identically-named artists, nor was a source provided describing or explaining the implied (and nebulous) claim of unfairness in these facts. Please review the original research policy again, particularly the sections on use of primary sources and synthesizing material. If you still disagree, please discuss in the related talk page thread. Thank you.
Balderdash. If you know that it's technical issue then explain how you know, then, explain why it doesn't apply to artists signed to last.fm's affiliates.
Sorry, but you can't hide behind "original research" on this just because Last.fm doesn't explicitly acknowledge that they have an inequitable policy. Of course they don't. But the fact remains that their stated policy -- and it is policy, whether or not that policy stems from a technical limitation, as is appropriately referenced -- is only applied to indie artists. If you want to pretend that WP:SYN applies (rather than your own inexplicable bias) then wiki's own policy is:
There's nothing more reliable than the company's own stated policies. So don't you dare delete it. It is the stated policy of Last.fm that artists with the same names are conflated, and yet that policy does not apply to artists whose intellectual property rights are owned by last's partners. If you don't believe it, try creating an "artist" named "The Police."
The most you can do is point out the discrepancy in the policy, not -- by a long shot -- delete reference to it.
What's astounding is your willingness to bend reality -- citing first "original research," then "synthesis," to remove something you don't approve of, despite that it is adequately referenced, and irrefutable. The answer to why an alternative "The Police" would be removed, while an indie duplicate name would not, is an intellectual property matter, which is not only the crux of the discrepancy, but something upon which I dare say you are not qualified to pass judgment, unless you are an IP attorney. Are you?
How dare you. Their policy is a matter of record. That they inequitably apply it is a matter of record. How dare you suggest that unless they explicitly acknowledge the inequity, it can't be referenced? Of course it can. You actually presume to defend the discrepancy as "a technical issue," (as if that rendered meaningless the intellectual property issues) but with no further examination of the "technical issues" you're somehow magically privy to? And when the policy in question is stated in plain language on their own website? How dare you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.65.124 (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just because Last.fm wouldn't acknowledge that it would have an inequitable policy doesn't mean that another reputable source wouldn't, if it was indeed something considered important. If you read the section on primary sources fully, you should already know that a solid secondary source like a news article would be a preferable citation over what the company would put out, anyway. As you quoted yourself from the Wikipedia policy, "each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly." Only one claim in your paragraph was ever sourced. It is primary source material, as I pointed out to you already. If you "only make descriptive claims" of the information stated therein, per the Wikipedia policy, you would:
- have done a better job describing, making it clear that it was in reference to artist profile pages, and not artist registration, which is different.
- not have tried to pass if off as a source for the statements that followed, which was interpretive editorializing to push your own particular viewpoint.
- Last.fm's data collection for off-site music-playing activity is based on metadata gathered by software installed by users for various music-playing programs. Songs that are imprinted with the same values in the Artist field are currently collected under the same artist profile. A more sophisticated system based on audio fingerprinting is still in development.[1] That the system cannot disambiguate different artists with the same name in profile pages at this point in time should not be construed as policy that the management does not differentiate a claim to a name by an established affiliate from that of an independent artist which may not have adequately demonstrated its rights to use the same name. That is not a policy inconsistency. If you are referring to the statement about identically-named artists having "equal right to appear", the FAQ item stipulates that this applies for "valid artist[s]". You can dispute how the company applies the concept of "valid artist", but you cannot claim that Last.fm is inconsistent with its own policy. The company is actively working on a system which would allow the disambiguation of all artists sharing the same name. In the meantime, the screening process for popular names is intended to prevent issues such as exploitative squatting of the artist pages.
- I still don't get how Last.fm is violating intellectual property rights for independent artists. The site requires that artists hold the rights to content they upload, and if an artist is unable to register itself with the site, it wouldn't be able to upload any such material for Last.fm to misuse. Plagiarism can be handled in the typical fashion. The same can be said for name trademark conflicts. Last.fm is hardly unusual in its handling of the matter, and the difficulties for smaller entities in protecting their IP against larger ones can be found pretty much anywhere else. Whether its name is unique or non-unique, an artist has no inherent right to a particular website registration. As for my qualification to evaluate Last.fm's FAQ entry, or more directly, your contribution to the Last.fm article on Wikipedia, if it's such "plain language", I wouldn't need to be an IP attorney to understand it. Would I?
- Please direct any further discussion to the article talk page thread I linked to in my last post on your talk page, and allow this discussion to be opened up to the other editors, who may be able to help contribute to or mediate the dispute. Dancter (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] SingStar article
A couple months back you commented at Talk:SingStar about a proposal to change SingStar-related articles. The discussion has recently come up again, and I've been discussing with User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles about whether or not we should include track lists for the games. If you have the time, I'd like to get a third opinion on the matter if possible. Thanks, --Tntnnbltn (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
